Now, as a result of this he points out on page 12 of the brief "As a result of these discussions the chairman and others within the commission referred persons to the telephone company, the gas company, and the electric company for employment."

Then, the second to the last sentence, "Some of the persons referred by me to the telephone company were employed."

Now, may I respectfully say that the only reason why the telephone company should employ people referred by him was because as chairman of the commission hearing their rate case he had a certain amount of power to punish them if they did not employ the people he recommended and to favor them if they did.

Then, in that rate case, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cotton, in that rate case we did not have a fair rate case at all. He gave them $2,300,000 every year-even though the General Services Administration recommended that the rate be decreased by $3 to $4 million per year because the telephone company was getting too much money at that time already.

Now, this could only be a payment for the fact that they employed the people whom he recommended. Now, that is one point.

Secondly, in his affidavit he admits, and he has admitted this as a result of the fact that I filed a motion in the Supreme Court of the United States asking that the case be sent back to find out whether it was true, that he had not only a daughter employed by the telephone company but also two minor children living inside his own house. So at the time he was hearing the telephone rate case he had three children employed by the telephone company, two of whom were living in his own house.

Now, may I respectfully say if I had any inkling about this I would have taken it to the newspapers and I would have filed a motion to disqualify. And if that had failed I would have made a motion in a higher court for an injunction to stop the proceeding. I speak both as a lawyer and as a ratepayer, and as a ratepayer who pays more than $1,000 a year. I would like to have my rates decided by people who are not personally profiting, who are not personally profiting by sitting in the job. I would like to have an impartial tribunal. I am entitled to an impartial tribunal.

The courts have said throughout that any man who sits as judge must be impartial. If he has any financial interest in the case he must disqualify himself and he should disqualify himself even though it is not known at the time either by himself and the telephone company what he is going to do. He should disclose if he dosen't disqualify himself; he should say, I have three children working for the telephone company right now. Do you want me to keep on hearing this case? Now, he claims in his affidavit in paragraph 6 on page 10The CHAIRMAN. What would you have said if he said that? Mr. CURTIS. I would have said, "Please get off the case." And I have spoken to any number of lawyers and newspapermen. I used to be a member of the press and I worked for the Boston Globe and the Pittsburgh Press and the Miami Herald as a syndicate feature writer, and every one of them has said this was a conflict of interest. The man should have disqualified himself. He did not disclose it. Now, he says in his paragraph 6 that I came to his office.

Mr. Arthur S. Curtis approached me in my office at the commission and stated that he had heard a rumor.

That, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cotton, is not true. I would say it is not true because his memory fails him.

Mr. Greco, who is in the room here, will probably tell you if he testifies accurately that I heard a rumor, somebody called me and said, "Do you know that the chairman of the public service commission has a daughter working over here and that they have given her three promotions in a very short time and she is not doing anything here and she parades around as though she were a queen." And I said, "Give me your name" and the party said, she couldn't. I called Mr. Greco and I said is it true that the chairman had a daughter working for the telephone company.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is Mr. Greco?

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Greco was the secretary of the public service commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. CURTIS. Now, I was immediately transferred by line to Mr. Washington, and he began in a dialog that the utilities were not employing Negroes, and that he was working on them to employ Negroes, and when the conversation ended I did not really know anything other than he suddenly injected race into the conversation and I was not quite sure what happened.

Subsequently, though, to that, I telephoned Mr. Greco and asked him what had happened and I was informed that his daughter was no longer working for the telephone company, but working for a college. But at no time-let us assume that you believe his story, that I did know about it and did not move to disqualify; even in his own affidavit he does not say that he had three children working for the telephone company and told me about it. He claims only that he told me he had only one child working for the telephone company and told me about it. Not only would I have disqualified him, but I believe that the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department would have made a motion to disqualify him, had it been known that he had three children working for the telephone company while he was sitting on the Telephone Rate case.

Now, may I refer at this point, Senator Magnuson and Senator Cotton, to the conflict-of-interest statute which I show in exhibit C. I believe it is fairly clear, particularly from 18 U.S.C. 208, on the last page, page 18, "Memorandum of Attorney General Regarding Conflict of Interest Provisions," and below that "Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest," and I quote:

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, of any independent agency of the United States, or of the District of Columbia *** participates personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation *** or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding *** in which to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child *** has a financial interest * * *. Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Now, up above that the memorandum of the Attorney General which partly

The CHAIRMAN. Read the note that is in here.

Mr. CURTIS. I read that note. I put that note in. I wrote this. I put that note in so that you as the chairman should know the other side of it.

In other words, he has to have an exemption to do this. In other words, he would have to come here today and say I wrote to the President of the United States and revealed this and the President of the United States wrote me a letter exempting me. And if he could do that I will step down from here and I will withdraw my opposition to his nomination.

Senator COTTON. Excuse me, this petition for rehearing was your petition?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, sir, Mr. Senator.

Senator COTTON. Was there an answer filed to the petition?

Mr. CURTIS. Well, to this, the procedure in the Supreme Court is as follows: I had filed a petition for a certiorari and, as you gentlemen know, the Court is very much overworked. I would say for an individual to get a petition for certiorari granted is an act of God.

Now, a week before the petition was acted on I heard some more information that in addition to having a daughter working for the telephone company Mr. Washington had a son working for the telephone company and had been referring people for employment. I do not know how many other relatives there were. So I filed a motion for remand to inquire about this. They then came forward with these affidavits. On Thursday I filed a summary of this and to get the thing in perspective. And on Friday they probably had their meeting and denied it, and then I wrote this petition for rehearing which I tried to bring together the law, in which there was not time enough in 2 days to put together for them.

Senator COTTON. At any time was there an answer filed by Mr. Washington or by the attorneys for him in the pleadings before the Supreme Court on your petition for a writ of certiorari?

Mr. CURTIS. Well, this affidavit which is here.

Senator COTTON. Í mean not what is in your petition.

Mr. CURTIS. This is from the Supreme Court papers. In other words, this affidavit which I have given to you today

Senator COTTON. If there were an answer filed you would have it. You would be aware of it.

Mr. CURTIS. No answer has been filed to this.

Senator COTTON. To your original petition?

Mr. CURTIS. The original petition for certiorari did not contain this, Senator Cotton. There was nothing about this in the original petition for certiorari. The original petition for certiorari went along on an entirely different ground.

Senator COTTON. It was confined to the rates and the justification. Mr. CURTIS. Right. Strictly legal problems.

Senator COTTON. And it was not until you filed this petition for rehearing that you raised the question of the qualifications of Mr. Washington to sit. Is that correct?

Mr. CURTIS. That is not quite right, Senator.

I can go into it. I say I filed a motion for remand so they could have a hearing to determine whether it was true that he had a child working for the telephone company, and that he had been referring other people to the telephone company for employment. And at that point these affidavits which I have presented to you, Senator, were placed in the record by the telephone company as a defense. And they said well, it doesn't mean anything. The two children were working for a short time and so forth, and the petition for certiorari was

denied. But didn't have a chance to tell the Court what the law was on it and obviously they are not going to do my research. Senator COTTON. We are taking unnecessary time.

I want to make sure that we have everything before us.

At no time in the Supreme Court motion did Mr. Washington or anyone representing him file a pleading?

Mr. CURTIS. No. I have no objection if he wants to file a pleading. I will have no objection.

Senator COTTON. But up to this point

Mr. CURTIS. No.

Senator COTTON. You say there has not been?

Mr. CURTIS. No.

Senator COTTON. So when we have this before us we will have everything before us that was filed with the Supreme Court relating to this point?

Mr. CURTIS. I think everything except-there were two other affidavits which would have cluttered up the record, but they were merely in line with these two.

Senator COTTON. And this is the reason why you filed this with the committee?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, sir, this all happened in the last 10 days and I am sure Secretary Volpe did not know about this. He might have reconsidered it.

Senator COTTON. Well, the Supreme Court had previously denied your writ of certiorari.

Mr. CURTIS. Prior to this.

Senator COTTON. Prior to this.

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. They have not acted on this?

Mr. CURTIS. No, sir.

Senator COTTON. I wanted to get that straight in the record.
Thank you, Mr. Curtis.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go a step further on the new petition.
Did you ask for these affidavits or how did they get in your petition?
Mr. CURTIS. Well, when I filed a motion-

The CHAIRMAN. I am not speaking of Mr. Washington.

Mr. CURTIS. How the telephone company asked the telephone company asked him for affidavits because obviously I had come to a very important point in the case, and I suggested that the Supreme Court should send the case back to explore whether it was true, and to see how many other relatives working for the public utilities as a result of sitting on the job.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, he has eight children and five grandchildren. He has a pretty good pool.

Mr. CURTIS. I would like to know-that is just his immediate family. I would like to know how many other children are working for other utilities and how many other relatives and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me, so we get this straight, because we are not dealing with a law case here, we are dealing with the qualifications of the nominee

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Everything considered.

Now, I do not know, and we will get the figures from the Chesapeake & Potomac, but if they are the same as they are in other urban dis

35-643 069-3

tricts, they are probably one of the largest employers of people in private business.

So, therefore, a person, a young person wanting a job might pretty well, no matter who he was the son or daughter of, might well apply to the telephone company because it is one of the big employers of service in most areas. In my State it is the third largest employer of people, the telephone company. Because of the great amount of service they have to have and operators and maintenance and all of that, so that chances are that a young person, wouldn't you say, looking for a summer job may end up applying at the telephone company?

Mr. CURTIS. That is against the law, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will get the figures.

Mr. CURTIS. I mean it is against the law. I quote on page 18 of my brief, first of all

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the youngster that is looking for a place to work.

Mr. CURTIS. Well, there are thousands of employers in Washington and to go to a public utility which according to Mr. Washington

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about private employment. Of course, the big employment here is the Government. We all know that. But private concerns

Mr. CURTIS. Well, there are thousands of places to work in Washington, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I know.

Mr. CURTIS. To go to a place with three children-to go to a place where the father is chairman of the public service commission and is regulating their rates, it is pretty clear to me and clear to anybody I have spoken to, and I am sure it is clear to the Senator, there must be some section-may I call the Senator's attention to page 18?

The CHAIRMAN. I am not passing on that. I am passing on the normal course of events, particularly young people.

Mr. Zahn says that I think we ought to have this clear in your file, in your petition. This is an affidavit of J. Hillman Zahn. Mr. CURTIS. He was the vice president.

The CHAIRMAN. Of the phone company?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. He says that James A. Washington, Jr., did not at any time request or suggest to me that the company should employ Grace Charlotte Alexander, which is his daughter, nor did he at any time give me the name of his daughter as a person qualified for employment.

In fact, I was not aware that his daughter was working for the company until some time after she had been employed.

Mr. CURTIS. May I explain that to you?

The CHAIRMAN. Then I want this clear. Then the other two are James A. Washington III, who is 18 and he worked from August 12 to August 30, that is about 2 weeks, at $69 a week. And the other one, so the telephone company says, is July 8 to August 31 and he got the big sum of $66 a week. And this was obviously-well, the Union had all of them raised to $72. But that is a short period.

Obviously, this is all temporary summer employment. You agree with that, don't you, for young people?